It's really not a very good article. It spends a lot of time talking about the West not taking Wuhan seriously like China, but they were getting their information from the Chinese government. Granted, it's pretty stupid to take anything the Chinese communicate at face value, but I think that's pretty relevant.
It does do a good job pointing out that policy choices don't make a huge difference. The virus's trajectory is driven more by non-policy issues. But it buries that lead relatively deep, and doesn't talk about the single catastrophic policy decision that has been shown to make a big difference, which is forcing covid positive patients into vulnerable populations like at nursing homes.
Also, it's sort of pointless to look at the US rates as we don't have a US response. If you take New York and New Jersey out, where they drove up their death counts through a callous indifference to seniors, the US looks a lot different.
It talks about failure of testing but doesn't talk about the fact that the CDC screwed up tests and that the FDA wouldn't allow temporary tests, as if 75% accurate and immediate results wouldn't have helped.
It also has some nonsensical paragraphs, like this one:
"What this all looks like a year from now remains, as a result, very much an open question, and it is striking, at this point, how little leaders have been punished. “Americans, in their lives as citizens and voters, have not rebelled against what has happened,” Cowen says. “And you have to blame that as a more fundamental cause than whatever the government has screwed up, which is plenty.” Trump, the face of America’s pandemic incompetence, almost won reelection, falling by only a small margin in critical states. Gavin Newsom is likely to be recalled, and Andrew Cuomo is immolating in scandals both related and unrelated to his management of the pandemic, but in Texas, Greg Abbott’s approval ratings are above water, and in Florida, Ron DeSantis has gotten eight points more popular since summer."
He says politicians have not been punished, but the examples he gives show that politicians are paying for incompetence and being rewarded for competence. Not as much as you'd like certainly. Newsome and Cuomo should already be gone based on their performance, but they are basically in one party states, so relative to that, that are taking a significant political hit. Desantis has gotten much more popular in a state that is relatively split politically even if it ends up consistently red. Similarly, Greg Abbot, who hasn't done as well as Desantis but much better than Cuomo or Newsome, is maintaining his popularity in another state that is consistently red but still relatively split politically.
Then some sentences completely disconnected from reality:
Democrats have endeavoured to almost single-handedly restore state capacity after two generations of market-based solutions and neoliberal austerity.
We have austerely run up trillions of dollars of debt in the last two generations. Is he disappointed we haven't turned ourselves into zimbabwe already? Exactly how much government spending could he possibly want?